Atomic Systems

Separate in that the Unreal version doesn't overwrite the existing one Peter; in other words we won't (shouldn't) find out that installing the 'Unreal' version prevents us from continuing to play with the version we have now.

I'm with AndiS regarding 'backwards compatability', better to start with a clean slate than compromise the new version by having to build in *faults* to accommodate the older assets---remember the upgrade from RailSimulator to RailWorks?....touted as being exciting and new but as soon as they announced that all the RS stuff would work in RW all that excitement (for me at least) vanished, it's impossible to make a flaw free (or with a minimum of flaws) product if you cater for all the older stuff and it's inherent flaws.

Yes, it'll end up expensive as we re-build our collections (though possibly not as expensive as many fear, models could possibly be re-done) but can you name any hobby that doesn't end up costing a fortune? I've approx. 2 grands worth of fishing tackle that's no longer used as it's been superseded by newer stuff I've bought for example, even though the old stuff is perfectly serviceable.

Gary

Separate in that the Unreal version doesn't overwrite the existing one Peter; in other words we won't (shouldn't) find out that installing the 'Unreal' version prevents us from continuing to play with the version we have now.

I agree that was my thought too TS UE4 is a totally separate entity.

I'm with AndiS regarding 'backwards compatability', better to start with a clean slate than compromise the new version by having to build in *faults* to accommodate the older assets---remember the upgrade from RailSimulator to RailWorks?....touted as being exciting and new but as soon as they announced that all the RS stuff would work in RW all that excitement (for me at least) vanished, it's impossible to make a flaw free (or with a minimum of flaws) product if you cater for all the older stuff and it's inherent flaws.

Again I agree - look at the mess with FSX - FS9 fiasco, but one caveat MS flight was separate but didn't cut it as it didn't have the same depth of DLC as FSX and was only slightly visually superior. Not all major upgrades work!

Yes, we will end up spending more dosh but that's what you do in any hobby?

pH

Cds you buy, books you buy, magazines you buy, even cars you buy etc etc.

Trev123 wrote:Cds you buy, books you buy, magazines you buy, even cars you buy etc etc.

...and on top of that we all love the most expensive thing there is.........women!!


(because they're worth it)

gptech wrote:

Trev123 wrote:Cds you buy, books you buy, magazines you buy, even cars you buy etc etc.

...and on top of that we all love the most expensive thing there is.........women!!


(because they're worth it)

Oh now Gary does mrs Gary read your posts you smoothie

theorganist wrote:The fact it is being discussed means the advertising is working, whatever we think of it.

Peter

+1 ,

peterfhayes wrote:Gary

When the UE4-based Train Simulator becomes a reality, what will happen to existing users’ older versions of Train Simulator? And what about the DLC they have purchased?

We are mindful that a lot of people in the community have built up some fantastic collections of locomotives and routes over the last few years and we're absolutely going to continue to support those products, and indeed create new content, for the current generation Train Simulator. I can say that we are looking at making the next generation Train Simulator an optional upgrade so you can continue to use the current generation product with all of your current add-ons, whether or not you choose to upgrade to the next generation. So, if you are concerned that your machine might not be up to handling Unreal Engine 4, don't worry.

I must be reading that from the left side of my brain, because to me that infers that you won't be able to use any current DLC in the next generation TS (UE4). So if that's not "separate" I don't know what is.
pH

It is all in the interpretation of the part you set in bold.
"We are looking at" in today's world can mean "we know it is next to impossible but we know that we will to offer some alternative".
But I do not claim to know that nothing like that will work!

There are three options:

1) By commercial arrangement. If you are a customer of "X for TS2017", you get product "X for UE4" at 50% of the retail price.

2) By tool from DTG. It might be possible for DTG to create a utility that takes TS2017 files and creates UE4 files from them. I don't know whether it would be clever to distribute such a thing as people judge any game by the looks and an engine created in 2010 or 2008 will look dated in any sim. DTG are aware of the value of a striving freeware community. But that could be catered by good "how to export your existing for UE4" guides, aimed at the original creators of shapes only.

3) By third party tool. Since there will be public demand for it, various volunteers will come up with aids to convert stuff. However, TS2013 has some DRM tricks in place that prevent shapes from rendering if you don't own some key or whatever. So I would not be surprised if there would be a hard limit to the conversion of payware using third party tools. And some would even find it illegal. There may well be some small print somewhere stating that you may only use the add-on in TS20xx and not in another simulator.

Please note that 3) is wild speculation and 2) is a technical option that does not appear too attractive. So my imaginary money is 1).

gptech wrote:Separate in that the Unreal version doesn't overwrite the existing one Peter; in other words we won't (shouldn't) find out that installing the 'Unreal' version prevents us from continuing to play with the version we have now.

I'm with AndiS regarding 'backwards compatability', better to start with a clean slate than compromise the new version by having to build in *faults* to accommodate the older assets---remember the upgrade from RailSimulator to RailWorks?....touted as being exciting and new but as soon as they announced that all the RS stuff would work in RW all that excitement (for me at least) vanished, it's impossible to make a flaw free (or with a minimum of flaws) product if you cater for all the older stuff and it's inherent flaws.

Yes, it'll end up expensive as we re-build our collections (though possibly not as expensive as many fear, models could possibly be re-done) but can you name any hobby that doesn't end up costing a fortune? I've approx. 2 grands worth of fishing tackle that's no longer used as it's been superseded by newer stuff I've bought for example, even though the old stuff is perfectly serviceable.

I have absolutely no problem at all with starting over from scratch if (and it's a massive if) the new simulator is a significant improvement over the current...

That will be the ultimate test. We've seen what can happen if the developer gets it wrong with Flight Sim. FSX was globally massive with every conceivable piece of DLC and refined carefully over many years, similar to Railworks as it exists today. Microsoft's attempt to create a new product was an enormous flop because the new product simply didn't raise the bar sufficiently further enough to justify the millions of customers making the switch. It flopped spectacularly.

It is possible however to make a new replacement product work and to draw everyone over. I was a day one purchaser of MSTS way back in the early 2000's. It gave me years of enjoyment and I amassed an enormous and expensive collection of stock and add-ons. In 2007 Railsimulator was born (the first version of todays TS2015) and as soon as I experienced that jaw-dropping 3D, 360 degree HST cab I was converted in an instant. Nothing like that had been seen in rail simulation before. The cab environment alone in Railsimulator was such an unfathomable leap forward over MSTS and it's fixed view grainy cab that I never touched MSTS again, even though this meant starting a collection all over again and making do with very limited stock and routes for months/years to come.

Unreal TS2017 or whatever it is, has to make a similar leap forwards in realism, graphics and/or engagement to make it viable otherwise it will become another flop like the latest Flight Sim...

I once dreamed that I was driving a little tank engine on a line that went through a forest which was carpeted with bluebells as far as you could see.

That was a pretty ex-dream.

The main problem with a new simulator is not just cost, but quality and functionality, some people thought I was a bit harsh about DTG producing tat, yes routes are very good, yes there are a lot of missing objects thing in the wrong place but I can live with that you don't notice so much as you pass at 100mph unless you are the driver of that route. But what is very poor quality is traction, I can live again with not all the switches working something or no cold starts, I understand that most of DTG customer just want to jump in and drive and not read a manual, but most traction sounds very poor and physics are dreadful, but its what we all come to expect, take the class 31, in real live a class 31 on load 5 climbing out of Settle struggled to make line speed up the gradient, but RSC version make very easy work of the climb, unlike Railright class 40 which has very good physics. time and effort needs to be put into there work, and it can be done with the current version, so why would I want to build up a new collection and spend lots of money on more traction that again is not going to be correct, yes people might but I don't know that, but based on previous experience then its very unlikely. I used MSTS for many years and thought is was great (yes it had is own problems). Rail Simulator came out, I bought it as soon as it came out, thought it was amazing the graphics compared to MSTS was stunning. but was very disappointed with sounds and physics of the traction, also the product was released full of bugs and without tools to make your own scenarios, there were made available around 2 months after release, by this time I had lost interest in the product and although I did download the tools when they were released never bothered with the product again and returned to MSTS. The product was remade and sold as Railworks with no free upgrade for customers who had bought Rail Simulator although almost the same product. after that I vowed never to buy there product, but then I found copy of being sold cheap at PC World and bought it, as I could make my own scenarios and loved the Graphics I had planned just to use the default routes and bought some DLC to complete the traction for ECML and Paddington - Oxford route, but got hooked on it and could not go back to the leeser quality graphics of MSTS and so bought nearly all UK traction, but still miss the amount of extra traction that was available for MSTS.

DTG have shown how they do not care for its customers, many people have ranted on this forum about traction faults in sounds or physics but still keep knocking out the same faults in there traction, they make routes and then decide not to make traction that would add value to these routes ( I understand that some times it is to do with Licensing issues like the class 185) and yet strive to make the sim more real by adding rain, cab sway, headlights ect but miss the basics. People say well if you don't like it don't buy it but there is still things I want for TS so will buy, but after 8 years I have come to know the standards we get and will be very cautious about parting with any money for a new sim and will wait a couple of years to see how the wind lies and getting dazed my a bit of glitter and how good a few things are because a new game engine will be a great improvement in some respect but if there is no quality to go with it will be no thanks, Maybe TS216 Extreme will fix everything maybe not,

But you have 12 months to improve your standards otherwise you wont be selling me a new sim, might sound harsh but if you want my money you have to deliver better standards.

david1 wrote:But you have 12 months to improve your standards otherwise you wont be selling me a new sim, might sound harsh but if you want my money you have to deliver better standards.

You are probably best sending this comment the DTG rather than posting on here as they are unlikely to read it here I would imagine and even less likely to respond here.

It is all about opinions and you have yours and some will share it but DTG wouldn't be where they are today if they were producing "tat", in my opinion. Maybe the physics on some models is wrong but judging by the amount of workshop scenarios plenty of people are using these add-ons.

As for functionality some people prefer the stop and go aspect of less complex models some like more advanced. I like both, I am still learning to start the Railright class 40 let alone drive it anywhere yet

Peter

david1 wrote:time and effort needs to be put into there work

Time and effort should be put into everything, we all agree with that. Some of us would go so far as to say that a little time and effort from ourselves when posting helps too.

david1 wrote:some people thought I was a bit harsh about DTG producing tat, yes routes are very good

You can't dismiss everything produced by DTG as 'tat' ---"have to endure the same tat brought to us by DTG, because they don't use the potential of the current sim." but now say routes are very good and retain credibility. Nobody has denied that when compared to the more advanced models DTG's offerings often don't come close, but that doesn't make them 'bad' models. If the physics of a particular loco upset you why not post in here asking if anybody knows how to improve it? A little bit of simple file editing wouldn't be as time consuming and be much more rewarding for everybody than composing a litany of complaints and in many cases the *answer* would be provided quite quickly.

david1 wrote:Maybe TS216 Extreme will fix everything maybe not,

It might fix many things, but TS2016 isn't what you were/are complaining about: it's not the Unreal powered version which you're "unlikely to bother with unless it completely blows me away"

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of course and to be able to express it in here; that's what discussion forums are for, but when presenting a case it's often better not to have that presentation 'full of holes' and sounding like a good excuse to have a good moan rather than a reasoned argument/observation.

theorganist wrote:You are probably best sending this comment the DTG rather than posting on here as they are unlikely to read it here I would imagine and even less likely to respond here.

I would have thought that DTG would read these forums, as it would give them an insight as to the long term customer base, not the masses that buy product and a few pieces of dlc and then move onto another game, I also feel that they should gave there product away as a free upgrade and not because I want to get something for nothing, but because my feelings about DTG are also shared by others, when UE comes out there is going to be a lot on positive feedback on these forums about some great new features and what can be done in the sim, but also a lot of negative feedback as well, and for all the current customers that are going to wait and see how other fair with the product any negative feedback will prevent sales in some cases, even though not everybody has all the errors in the game, by letting customer try for themselves and see the improvements then they will more than likely get hooked as I was with TSXX and by adding £1 to dlc then would get there money back that they would lose on the core game many times over

david1 wrote:and by adding £1 to dlc then would get there money back that they would lose on the core game many times over

Show me the maths.

gptech wrote:
Show me the maths.

If you had a pie, then you gave me 20% of that pie, then gave so and so 30% of that pie, then ate 5% of that pie, then made another pie but left it in too long so you burnt it how much of the pie would you have left? Consider also that you left it out all day and the big mouse upstairs probably had his slice. Or am I talking the wrong maths?